ic_list_food_service

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the operation is safe. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that by disclosing the FeatureDisabled response when the module is off, including the detection mechanisms ('displayOptions or a 404 backstop'). This helps the agent handle an important edge case.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with no filler. The main action and resource are front-loaded, and the second sentence covers the FeatureDisabled edge case efficiently.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is adequate for a simple read-only list, and the FeatureDisabled edge is covered. However, with no output schema and undocumented since/until parameters, the agent must infer date-range semantics and the normal response shape on its own.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 20%, with since, until, district, and studentId left undocumented. The description mentions the student and district in prose but adds no detail about date formats, bounds, or identifier semantics, so it does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb, 'List', and a clear resource, 'a student's lunch balance and recent food-service transactions.' It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like ic_list_fees or ic_list_recent_grades because it names the food-service domain explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description makes the tool's context clear: it is for food-service lunch balances and transactions. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the resource is specific enough that an agent can infer appropriate use.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.